Misplaced Passion: The Underlying Threat in Mel Gibson's Movie

There’s only been one topic of conversation in New York for the past few weeks: Mel Gibson’s latest film, The Passion of the Christ. Newsweek dedicated an issue to it, and the discussion continued into the following week’s publication and beyond. The Jewish Week has been struggling with it over the course of several issues. Go to church or synagogue, and every religious leader seems to be speaking about it. Check your e-mail and there are inevitably a handful of messages passing judgment on it. Go out for a meal, and it’s bound to come up in conversation sooner or later. Frankly, it’s incessant. There’s no escape. And, of course, the big question that keeps coming up is: is it antisemitic?

Based on the images of Jews in the film, the answer is a clear and categorical yes. With one or two minor exceptions, Jews are variously portrayed as money-grabbing, arrogant, blasphemous, corrupt and demonic trouble-makers, who taunt, scorn, mock, beat and spit at Jesus. On reflection, Gibson’s Jews are not entirely dissimilar to those of medieval Christendom or even Nazi Germany. I think that more or less says it all.

But what about the film as a whole? Is that antisemitic? From a Jewish perspective, it is certainly dubious. It tells the story of the death of Jesus in graphic and gruesome detail, pinning responsibility for his death – at least in part – on the Jews. The most damaging line from the Gospel According to Matthew – “His blood be on us [the Jews] and on our children”, which was used for centuries to justify anti-Jewish legislation and violence – is heard in the film in Aramaic, although not translated. But its presence at all directly contravenes the declaration issued by the Second Vatican Council in October 1965 which noted that Jesus’ death “cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today.”

Nevertheless, Gibson seems disinterested in Vatican II. He innocently claims that he is simply telling the story according to the biblical account. And how can that be antisemitic? After all, it is just the truth.

Putting aside the matter of whether the film fully aligns with the biblical account (which it doesn’t), this whole question of truth begins to point to the real issue raised by The Passion. The fact is, at least part of Christian truth, if one reads the New Testament literally, is damaging to Judaism. It accuses the Jews of the most heinous crime possible – deicide. And Vatican II, in spite of its rejection of this idea, nevertheless states: “All should see to it, then, that… they [Christians] do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.” But how do you do that? Do you follow Gibson’s “truth of the Gospel” which clearly accuses the Jews of deicide? Or do you follow Vatican II’s “spirit of Christ” which clearly states that the Jews are blameless? In short, what do you do when “the truth of the Gospel” and the “spirit of Christ” appear to completely contradict one another?

This contradiction brings us right into the real issue raised by Gibson’s film, which is not antisemitism, but is rather religious extremism. On the one hand, Christianity has inspired many to perform profound acts of love. On the other, it has inspired many to perform despicable acts of hatred. It all depends on how one interprets the tradition, and which parts of it one elects to highlight. The new battle lines that are starting to be drawn today lie directly between these two traditions – between the literal and the more allegorical interpretations of religious texts.

Islam suffers from this tension most acutely. Fundamentalist, literal interpretations of Islam have resulted in murderous acts being perpetrated in the United States, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Chechnya, Kashmir, East Africa, Israel and elsewhere. But certainly a more moderate form of Islam exists, which doesn’t preach hatred and intolerance, and which is willing to recognise that other religious traditions are also ‘true’.

Judaism isn’t immune from the tension. One only has to think of Baruch Goldstein, and Yigal Amir to encounter two fairly recent examples of Jews adopting fundamentalist interpretations of Jewish texts to legitimise murder. But normative Judaism is utterly removed from such abhorrent behaviour. It has deeply tolerant and compassionate traditions – loving the stranger, visiting the sick, giving charity, etc. are all fundamental tenets of Jewish religious practise.

And Christianity seems increasingly to be drawn into the same dynamic. Gibson’s film is just the tip of the iceberg; Christian fundamentalism is growing, and almost inevitably, intolerance of other interpretations of religious truth is rapidly following in its wake. It needn’t be this way – Christianity doesn’t need to malign others to uphold its profound traditions of tolerance, peace and love.

This new politicisation of religion is potentially as dangerous as the ‘religiousization’ of politics that occurred in the 20th century. When the political ideology of fascism was turned into a neo-religious movement, Hitler became a demigod, the NSDAP became the church, Nazi ideology became dogma, and Jews and other undesirables became the evil forces that needed to be destroyed. Today, the opposite is happening – religious ideals are being turned into political movements. But the dangers are equally frightening. Fundamentalist interpretations of religion are politicizing religious traditions in order to use them to abuse, defame, and murder outsiders. The greatest threat to Western civilization is not religion or Islam or Islamic extremism per se – it is rather any form of religious extremism that regards itself as Truth, and all else as falsehood.

I don’t oppose Mel Gibson’s work on the simple grounds that it might incite antisemitism, even though there is a genuine possibility that it will in parts of the world. I oppose it because it’s turning a great and loving religious tradition, which has so much good to offer the world, and presenting it as absolute Truth. In doing so, it’s denying the validity and authenticity of other religious traditions, and is sowing the seeds of division, tension and violence. Gibson’s passion for his religious beliefs is very apparent, but frankly it’s misplaced. Religious passion that denies the legitimacy of other people’s religious passion is arguably the greatest threat to world peace today. Sadly, Gibson’s passion – with a large and small ‘P’ – is yet another damaging example of this phenomenon.